Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

It's interesting that you would think that there is a conspiracy to hide the age of the earth.

What's *more* interesting is that you discount the one by your presumed god. After all, your god has gone to some pretty absurd lengths to hide the age of the universe, making it appear as though it's much older than you claim.

I wonder why that would be. Would you care to suggest a reason why your god would lie and conceal?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

No, they don't prove a young Earth. The "halo" rings in the rocks could also have been made by radon or uranium, both of which have considerably longer half-lives. This article by John Brawley explains in more detail.

All this raises a question that I am still trying to resolve. That is, why should theists feel threatened by advances in science? If the advances show that a given theistic understanding is incorrect, why not adopt the new information and go on with the work of the church to take care of widows and orphans?

I think that science is actually doing theists a favour by cutting away everything that doesn't look like a god. Why would any religion be hostile to such a venture? Whenever conformity to doctrine becomes more important than correcting errors, it serves only those who are using the errors for personal gain.

Not all theists fear scientific advancement. Some think it is noble to learn more about the inter workings of God's creation.

In this particular case why a god would choose to intentionally create a universe that looks and acts as though it were millions, billions of years old. Why would the Christian god choose to do that?

One can come up with all sorts of hand wave excuses, but the simplest answer as to why a star appears to be say, 200,000 light years away is that the light has been traveling for 200,000 years before it got here.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

But they couldn't do that, because the world was created ten years ago by Satan, who - for funnies - created the whole Bible, and made sure that it LOOKED like it was a 2,000 year old book discussing a 6,000 year old world that looked like a 16 billion year old world.

Or, if you like.......Christ never actually came to Earth to be sacrificed, because Yahweh created the whole world on a Tuesday afternoon in 1642. All the events in the Bible are metaphors, made up by Yahweh. None of the characters - Adam, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Judas, John - ever really existed. The Earth is just under 400 years old. There was no real "sacrifice", because it never really happened.

Do you have one single shred of evidence that can counter that theory?

Or will you ignore this question as being far too complex, and far too likely to destroy your own 6,000-year worldview if you successfully address it?

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

This, IMHO, is the WHOLE PROBLEM. Because you see that science can defeat (and has defeated) at least some of your ideas about your diety, you make the false assumption that this is science's goal, and you therefore feel justified in dismissing it as biased.

News flash: science doesn't give a (lab) rat's ass about any god.

Science is simply a methodology designed to try to come up with answers to what makes up our world/universe. It's designed in such a way as to remove as many biases as possible, while keeping a few truths (such as, most things behave in a predictable way).

Simply because science gives answers you don't like is no reason to dismiss it. Just shows YOUR bias in making the false assumption of science's goals.

Actually, I find it humorous that what you see as science's goal--to get rid of god--is just the side-effect of its ACTUAL goal--to find the truth of things.

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Are you really that much of a conspiracy guy that you think ALL of science is to "get rid of God"??? There are tons of Christians who accept the scientific observations. Don't you think you are being hypocritical here, in accepting ONLY the science that affirms your presumptions and denying the others?? That is the opposite of science you know.

If you were truly honest you would hold your presuppositions TENTATIVELY and follow the evidence where it leads - instead of LEADING the evidence where you want it to go, trying to change what science is, and using fallacious arguments such as god of the gaps. Science requires you to be CRITICAL of your assumptions, instead of trying to defend them against all challenges. This is what you are not doing, and what I think you are unwilling to do b/c you have too much to lose.

The problem of your confirmation bias is what you must deal with first.

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of UGABUGA as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

Ancient Scrolls can't be correct. Why? Because UGABUGA isn't real.

Separate you statement from this variation.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.

All Christians are like people that pack a large bag that nobody else can see planning to go on a trip. Their trip is a place they are absolutely sure exists but you cannot find this exotic, heavenly destination on a map and you cannot go to this designation while alive. They pack this large bag for the hope that in death they will go to the better of the 2 places that they not only made up but packed their bag properly for and even developed a relationship with the so-called ruler of this exotic place they once again made up.

All Christians pack their bags with different stuff all claiming that they have all the right stuff for the trip. Every Christians bags are different colors, shapes and sizes and yet all claim they still have not only the right bag but the right stuff packed.

When people who don't have these bags question why they have the bag and what they have packed they always get different answers and reasons for the bag they've picked and what the contents of the bag are. When people who don't have bags point out what others have or don't have in their bags the person currently holding their bag in front of us quickly point out why the other bags are wrong and some of the contents are wrong.

Myself being a person without a bag learn over time that the people with the bags seemingly get the decision that the bag is needed because of the type of family and how they were raised making them feel like they require the bag themselves. The color, shape, and size of the bag is generally picked by geography as well as the contents which vary from location to location.

Anyways, you all can keep your bags if you feel they are necessary as well of your content that always seem to change with time, geography and bag person to bag person. But please don't tell me that you can't understand why we don't believe you even need to the bag let alone most of its contents. More importantly please don't tell me why we think the underlying reason for the bag and it's contents is for the hope and of a relationship with the ruler of a destination that can only be attained in death.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all we ask for is a little and the common courtesy of thinking about the real reasons you feel you need your invisible bag with your own special contents. Ask yourself what is more likely vs unlikely in life and not only will you be more open and honest with yourself, you'll sound more credulous and reasonable.

Excellent way to describe it. That part has always irked me about religion from a young age. You all do a great job really at pointing out the huge flaw it has. I really do wish Skeptic would answer this question properly, as to why he believes that his "packed bag" of religion is the "right" one. If there is no way to know for sure, then how can he simply follow a faith blindly all his life in the hope that his choice is right?

If there were a god at the end of the day, and you followed a religion based upon your own interpretation on what is right all your life, only to find that you were wrong and didn't get into heaven or didn't get saved or risen from the dead (again, depending on what you believe) then what is the point in believing at all? Sounds like a huge waste of life and Sundays. You might as well go through life and live every day to the fullest, with the understanding that you won't get another one.

No, they don't prove a young Earth. The "halo" rings in the rocks could also have been made by radon or uranium, both of which have considerably longer half-lives. This article by John Brawley explains in more detail.

Can't believe I missed this. Notice how you said, "could also have" with the keyword "could."

That is not 100% solid proof. In the same way the polonium halos "could" also mean the Earth is young. This is why we want it taught in classrooms. Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation, it's not right to only include ONE version of the speculation. That is called indoctrination.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

That is not 100% solid proof. In the same way the polonium halos "could" also mean the Earth is young. This is why we want it taught in classrooms. Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation, it's not right to only include ONE version of the speculation. That is called indoctrination.

And guess what?Polonium is complete rubbish for proving a young earth.

If the earth was indeed 10-6K years old, there should be virtually no polonium, it should all be radon and uranium.In other words, we should find A METRIC ASS-LOAD of elements which have high half lives.

Alas, this is not the case.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

That is not 100% solid proof. In the same way the polonium halos "could" also mean the Earth is young. This is why we want it taught in classrooms. Since both of them are based on guesses and speculation, it's not right to only include ONE version of the speculation. That is called indoctrination.

And guess what?Polonium is complete rubbish for proving a young earth.

If the earth was indeed 10-6K years old, there should be virtually no polonium, it should all be radon and uranium.In other words, we should find A METRIC ASS-LOAD of elements which have high half lives.

"Figure 2 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue “2-sigma error bars” going vertically through them. If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time. Again, the RATE “results” book (which has now passed through extensive peer review and is being proofread) will have the details on the error estimates.To our great delight, the data fell right on the “6,000 year” prediction! This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small. The data resoundingly reject the “1.5 billion year” model. The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them. (Even after several years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.)This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model."

« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 02:20:17 AM by skeptic54768 »

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

A: scientists do not want to hide anything.B: the site is against "macro evolution" (Yeah, because 1 step a day can never reach a mile...pshhh)C: it tries to use science to prove the supernatural.

AKA, bogus.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

There does appear to be an interesting exchange regarding Dr. Humphreys and a Dr. Loechelt on Dr. Humphrey's findings. I have not read all of the articles listed but in one of the later ones it seems Dr. Humphreys is continuing to ignore questions put forth by Dr. Loechelt from 4 years ago. If that is the case, I wonder why Dr. Humphreys can't or won't respond?

I am sorry but you can not just dismiss something like that without explaining why.

The main reason I would dismiss it, is that

(1) the opinion and rationale is based solely on what Dr Humphries says. Since you are not a geologist (neither is he) you are not qualified to actually figure out if what he is saying is true. Therefore he could be just saying God awful crap. One indicator of this, is whether he has any other non-biased scientists on his side.(2) his rationale depends upon diffusion rates through a matrix of zircon, which could be anything, as evidenced by the fact that his result is anything.(3) he requires the coincidence of 6000 years to be a whoopie moment. However, if the figure came out at 15000 years, he would still be happy, and would most likely fudge the log axis on his graph.(4) he and you are ignoring all the evidence which says the Earth is very old. It is not acceptable to dismiss all the valid evidence, and then consider only the incorrect evidence.

In science, it is good practice to consider the correct evidence. Evidence does not become correct, when it aligns with what you want it to be. You have to make a case that the majority of evidence is on your side, rather than fabricating it using woo. Even if the majority of evidence is on your side, you may still be wrong. It is generally not a good indicator, if hardly any evidence is on your side, and the only people who endorse your position are fruity.

Good luck with your quest to join random bits of incorrect conclusions into a half baked product.

They're not both based on guesses and speculation. That is called a false equivalence. Stop doing that.

Yes, it is both guesses and speculation. Uniformitarianism is an assumption, not an empirical fact.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Yes, it is both guesses and speculation. Uniformitarianism is an assumption, not an empirical fact.

You did it again. Guesses and speculation are not the same as an assumption. That would be one of those false equivalences I asked you to stop making.

Also, you just shifted the goal posts. Uniformitarianism was not mentioned in that post. It was about polonium halos and some cockamamie idea that you allege is being suppressed because of religious bias or some bullshit like that. All of which you offered without any supporting evidence, I might add.

This looks a lot like a really dishonest argument skep. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But you are floundering.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

In case you haven't noticed, the only people pushing against this idea are people who desperately need it to be false, ie, young earth creationists. If you would like to establish that uniformitarianism is wrong, go ahead, get your science on. But until you have a better reason than an iron age book of myths, I invite you to stfu about it.

Yes, it is both guesses and speculation. Uniformitarianism is an assumption, not an empirical fact.

You did it again. Guesses and speculation are not the same as an assumption. That would be one of those false equivalences I asked you to stop making.

Also, you just shifted the goal posts. Uniformitarianism was not mentioned in that post. It was about polonium halos and some cockamamie idea that you allege is being suppressed because of religious bias or some bullshit like that. All of which you offered without any supporting evidence, I might add.

This looks a lot like a really dishonest argument skep. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But you are floundering.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

In case you haven't noticed, the only people pushing against this idea are people who desperately need it to be false, ie, young earth creationists. If you would like to establish that uniformitarianism is wrong, go ahead, get your science on. But until you have a better reason than an iron age book of myths, I invite you to stfu about it.

But if I told you, "Please prove that the Bible is NOT the Word of God," you would scream, "Unfair! Prove it is the Word of God!"

Something is a miss here and doesn't quite add up on the fairness scale....

That is not even in the same categorical ballpark and it is a dodge.

If you are going to posit that the laws of the universe change, cough up the data. You should be able to measure the rate of change, explain the mechanism of change, and why you would even think they change in the first place! I'm open to it. No one has said uniformitarianism is 100% incontrovertible. If it is false, it means certain things. You should be able to predict that and find evidence. As I have said before, I want to believe what is true.

So far most of what you have argued has been an attempt to say "we don't know anything at all, thus every conclusion is as good as every other" in an attempt to put your religious ideas on par with science. Do you realize that demolished your own arguments?